Originally posted by Johnny S:
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How is that not the statement of someone who does not want to agree? Surely highlighting the causes of disagreement is one of the major steps towards understanding?quote:Not only that, I would suggest that it is primarily a product of North American conservative protestantism from the mid-1800s onward.
It seems a product of post-enlightenment (western) European thought -- as a reaction, I mean.
quote:This is a bit circular. You said who the inspiration is by, but not what inspiration means.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Inspiration: The scriptures, while the work of human authors, are the product of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
quote:Which requires that they be clear in their statements re. etc. In other words that the scriptures are self-interpreting. Very Protestant.
Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
quote:I believe this statement means that where there appears to be a conflict between a 'prophesy' or 'human philosophy' or any other potential source of knowledge it is the Biblical principle which has authority. That is why it can be related to the enlightenment which was pre-occupied with sources of knowledge and evidence. It is an epistemological outlook.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour."
My question (and please forgive my theological naivety here) is: what does 'infallible' mean in this context?
quote:This is unclear. Con evos are a certain group of people, and the statement quoted in the title & OP does, in fact, reflect their views. Further there are other groups of people (as evidenced on this thread) whose views it does not reflect.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
It is not fair to say that it simply reflects the views of a certain group of people. The Bible is silent on a number of issues and con evos accept that these issues should be decided according to each persons conscience.
quote:Indeed. You could say that the Delphic Oracles are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ - plus a whole bunch of other things besides. Doesn't mean that anyone knows what they're on about, until after whatever it is they were supposed to have prophesied has already happened.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which requires that they be clear in their statements re. etc. In other words that the scriptures are self-interpreting. Very Protestant.
Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
quote:I was referring to SPK's comment that "it's a shibboleth for "the Bible supports the theological positions we say it supports."
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is unclear. Con evos are a certain group of people, and the statement quoted in the title & OP does, in fact, reflect their views. Further there are other groups of people (as evidenced on this thread) whose views it does not reflect.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
It is not fair to say that it simply reflects the views of a certain group of people. The Bible is silent on a number of issues and con evos accept that these issues should be decided according to each persons conscience.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which requires that they be clear in their statements re. etc. In other words that the scriptures are self-interpreting. Very Protestant.
Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
quote:It seems very strange to me that people can agree that the Bible is authoritative, but disagree violently on what it says.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which requires that they be clear in their statements re. etc. In other words that the scriptures are self-interpreting.
Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
Clear does not have to logically follow from true.
quote:So it makes saying that it is infallible pointless, except as a banner to group around.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Well, of course, an infallible document is only as infallible as its interpreters.
Just look what some nutjobs can derive from the US Constitution if you want a flawed analogy...
quote:Use your imagination.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You said who the inspiration is by, but not what inspiration means.
quote:Not at all.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
It seems very strange to me that people can agree that the Bible is authoritative, but disagree violently on what it says.
quote:Quite possibly.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:So it makes saying that it is infallible pointless, except as a banner to group around.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Well, of course, an infallible document is only as infallible as its interpreters.
Just look what some nutjobs can derive from the US Constitution if you want a flawed analogy...
quote:Now you're talking.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I used to bandy around a quote from the West Wing, where a politician asks Toby Ziegler if he thinks the Bible is true. "Yes Sir," he responds, "but I don't think either of us are smart enough to understand it".
quote:By that analogy the only thing infallible about the bible is it saying God exists. Those who claim infallibility usually say there is a lot more than that.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Not at all.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
It seems very strange to me that people can agree that the Bible is authoritative, but disagree violently on what it says.
Scientists work hard in coming up with better models to explain the world around us. None, I hope, think they have come up with the infallible model, but equally none (IME) stop believing that there is an objective planet out there to be studied. If they did they would quickly lapse into solipsism.
quote:An infallable but not-infallably-interpretable Bible isn't infallable at all. Why even bother calling the Bible infallable if you can't unpack it infallably? Its infallability is totally unreachable, unobtainable, like Kant's ding-an-sich. It may be there, but it does us no good at all. At that point the infallability of the Bible becomes a "thaaaaaaat's niiiiiice" footnote.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Not at all.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
It seems very strange to me that people can agree that the Bible is authoritative, but disagree violently on what it says.
Scientists work hard in coming up with better models to explain the world around us. None, I hope, think they have come up with the infallible model, but equally none (IME) stop believing that there is an objective planet out there to be studied. If they did they would quickly lapse into solipsism.
quote:Okay. I imagine that "inspiration" means a beautiful purple unicorn came and stood by St. Paul's side as he wrote the letter to the Romans, telling him what to say and pointing out his spelling errors.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Use your imagination.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You said who the inspiration is by, but not what inspiration means.
quote:Yes, if you're Kant.
Originally posted by mousethief:
An infallable but not-infallably-interpretable Bible isn't infallable at all. Why even bother calling the Bible infallable if you can't unpack it infallably? Its infallability is totally unreachable, unobtainable, like Kant's ding-an-sich. It may be there, but it does us no good at all. At that point the infallability of the Bible becomes a "thaaaaaaat's niiiiiice" footnote.
quote:The reason for the "as originally given" phrase in such statements of belief is manyfold. First, it means that we're not talking about one single translation having priority. Second, it's a call to a high standard of scholarship to attempt to determine as best as we can the original documents - both the actual words and the original meaning. Third, it's a recognition that interpretation (including translation) is fallible, and hence leads to the practice of comparing and studying different interpretations to attempt to discern the closest we can get to what God is actually trying to tell us. The whole phrase is basically a call to work hard at reading Scripture. We have no excuse to treat Scripture lightly.
Originally posted by Alogon:
What is the purpose of a statement about a document or documents that we can never see?
quote:That presupposes you know that your interpretation is true. But by definition you KANT know that. So your "most people" are perhaps happy but grossly mistaken in their certainty.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
quote:And how would scripture do this?
Originally posted by Makepiece:
My view, which I believe is based on scripture, is that God's main priority is that we enter into a relationship with him and relate in the same way to others. As he has revealed himself through scripture it is difficult to grow in a relationship with God without scripture because we won;t know if it's really him or not.
quote:And that depends on what you mean by 'know'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That presupposes you know that your interpretation is true. But by definition you KANT know that. So your "most people" are perhaps happy but grossly mistaken in their certainty.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
quote:Which is an argument against using words for communication at all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That presupposes you know that your interpretation is true. But by definition you KANT know that. So your "most people" are perhaps happy but grossly mistaken in their certainty.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
quote:I don't think scripture in itself causes a relationship with God to occur but you can't know anyone unless they disclose information about themselves to you. The Bible seems to me to contain the most thorough revelations of God's character available. This is how he seems to have chosen to reveal himself. I don't believe that many people would choose to seek God through prayer without a decent knowledge of scripture because it is scripture which points us in this direction and I agree that prayer is very important.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:And how would scripture do this?
Originally posted by Makepiece:
My view, which I believe is based on scripture, is that God's main priority is that we enter into a relationship with him and relate in the same way to others. As he has revealed himself through scripture it is difficult to grow in a relationship with God without scripture because we won;t know if it's really him or not.
There is an awful lot of contadiction in there as to God's character and actions.
quote:Sorry. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I'm not claiming inerrancy.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:And that depends on what you mean by 'know'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That presupposes you know that your interpretation is true. But by definition you KANT know that. So your "most people" are perhaps happy but grossly mistaken in their certainty.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
Do you know that your view of epistemology is true?
quote:Nope. If I don't claim my communication is inerrant. Normal communication doesn't have as high of a bar.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Which is an argument against using words for communication at all.
quote:God promised the Jews that he'd be faithful to them. God turns around and becomes incarnate as Jesus, who fails to meet the test God establishes for the Messiah in the OT. Yet if Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah God, they are going to hell.
From Genesis through to Revelation the message is that God is faithful to his promises.
quote:Perhaps that's why some people need a pope.
Originally posted by mousethief:
[qb]An infallable but not-infallably-interpretable Bible isn't infallable at all. Why even bother calling the Bible infallable if you can't unpack it infallably? Its infallability is totally unreachable, unobtainable, like Kant's ding-an-sich. It may be there, but it does us no good at all. At that point the infallability of the Bible becomes a "thaaaaaaat's niiiiiice" footnote.
quote:Perhaps they should say what they mean? If anybody then is making a category error, it is those people, not I. Have a word with them, would you?
Originally posted by Jamat:
Seriously, I sense a category error here. People who say the Bible is infallible usually mean the one who inspired it, God, is infallible.
quote:Lots of people describe it as not inspired by the Holy Spirit, so this is on its face false.
The Bible is in the sense your're talking about, merely text. Text is produced through a cultural filter and received through one. In itself it cannot be described as anything but inspired by the HS.
quote:Using your imagination? That's what you told me to do. I wasn't asking for a product of the imagination, I was asking what people were actually using the term to mean in this debate.
Regarding inspiration, I did define it I though
quote:He also promised David a permanent and plenary patrilinear* line of kings. That didn't happen either.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:God promised the Jews that he'd be faithful to them. God turns around and becomes incarnate as Jesus, who fails to meet the test God establishes for the Messiah in the OT. Yet if Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah God, they are going to hell.
From Genesis through to Revelation the message is that God is faithful to his promises.
That doesn't sound like God is being faithful to his promises.
quote:I thought this thread was running under this definition:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Seriously, I sense a category error here. People who say the Bible is infallible usually mean the one who inspired it, God, is infallible. The Bible is in the sense your're talking about, merely text. Text is produced through a cultural filter and received through one. In itself it cannot be described as anything but inspired by the HS. A different thing to infallible if similarly thorny.
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
quote:The promise was not for followers but for descendants ("seed" in the quaint King James language; "offspring" in the NIV.) Are Jews the only descendants of Abraham?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And that Abraham's followers would number as the number of grains of sand on the earth (Gen. 13:16), yet there are fewer Jews in the world than there are people in New York State, and worldwide their number is falling.
quote:See, that is why I proposed those definitions and laid them out in the beginning. I wouldn't suggest that those definitions are absolutes (or that they are infallible
I thought this thread was running under this definition:
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) but I have seen too many debates on this subject go completely off the rails because the people involved can't agree on exactly what they are talking about. quote:You're not the only person who could, but you did provide definitions. Except one of them sucked because it was circular. So I asked if you could give a non-circular version. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or something.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
I wasn't aware I was the only person on the Ship who could provide a definition. Frankly, though, I don't have one, and in any case, I'm not sure that is what is being debated here.
This is your party, not mine; I was just trying to help with the setup.
quote:You did help with the set-up. I did not agree with Jamat's statement "People who say the Bible is infallible usually mean the one who inspired it, God, is infallible" which seemed to presume that that was the definition we had been discussing. I had never heard it defined that way before and I doubt that many who believe in the infallibility of the bible would be happy with it.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
I wasn't aware I was the only person on the Ship who could provide a definition. Frankly, though, I don't have one, and in any case, I'm not sure that is what is being debated here.
This is your party, not mine; I was just trying to help with the setup.
quote:But it will. Christ is David's greater son and his kingdom will not pass away.(The Bible says so.)
Mousethief: He also promised David a permanent and plenary patrilinear* line of kings. That didn't happen either.
quote:The kingdom DID pass away. For many years. The promise was not kept.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:But it will. Christ is David's greater son and his kingdom will not pass away.(The Bible says so.)
Mousethief: He also promised David a permanent and plenary patrilinear* line of kings. That didn't happen either.
quote:You did and I disagreed based on my discussions with people over the years and an internet search to make sure I had not been under a misconception all that time.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding what most people think infallibility is, whose to say? [/QB]
quote:No, you have misunderstood what I meant to communicate (which may be may fault, word being imprecise and all that)
Nope. If I don't claim my communication is inerrant. Normal communication doesn't have as high of a bar.
quote:Good point.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The promise was not for followers but for descendants ("seed" in the quaint King James language; "offspring" in the NIV.) Are Jews the only descendants of Abraham?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And that Abraham's followers would number as the number of grains of sand on the earth (Gen. 13:16), yet there are fewer Jews in the world than there are people in New York State, and worldwide their number is falling.
quote:But in considering this further, I understand the Arab people consider themselves the descendants of Abraham, but God's promise was explicitly tied to keeping the covenant. The Arabs didn't keep the covenant, so do they count? (And are the Arabs and Canaanites and other local pagans the same people?)
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Good point.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The promise was not for followers but for descendants ("seed" in the quaint King James language; "offspring" in the NIV.) Are Jews the only descendants of Abraham?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And that Abraham's followers would number as the number of grains of sand on the earth (Gen. 13:16), yet there are fewer Jews in the world than there are people in New York State, and worldwide their number is falling.
quote:So you have said. I don't take this as read. Can you back this up with argument?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:No, you have misunderstood what I meant to communicate (which may be may fault, word being imprecise and all that)
Nope. If I don't claim my communication is inerrant. Normal communication doesn't have as high of a bar.
All that I'm saying is that if a definitive interpretation is necessary for there to be true communication, then using words is always basically a busted flush.
quote:Aye.
As you're using words, I take it that you think something can be communicated by them.
quote:How? What's the mechanism here? I think it's infallible so this interpretation is out, but these interpretations are in? How do I distinguish these two groups, practically?
Infallibility merely restricts the possible interpetative possibilities
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I'm not claiming inerrancy.
How on earth can you speak of proof while you are questioning my epistemology? It is a meaningless question until we agree on what constitutes proof.quote:This assumes it is always possible for us to come to a mutual understanding of what they mean in a given instance. I'd say that the history of the church is proof against that.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
a) Words do have some level of objectivity in their meanings.
b) Words can be ambiguous so we need to discuss things in order to understand what they mean when they are used.
quote:I'm sorry but if you can't be civil why do you expect others to converse with you? In fact I do not at all doubt that some people apply the same to the bible. I just think that if we are unable to guarantee an infallable interpretation, then the infallability of the Bible is not worth anything. It's like saying you have gold, but you just can't spend it or use it or touch it or enjoy it.
I can't see why it is so hard to grasp that some people apply the same to the bible.
quote:How do you know when you have the "objective" meaning? Come up with a set of criteria that we all can agree on. It's way too easy to grasp any number of different meanings. That's the problem. What's clear to you is unclear to Bob, and completely opaque to Lisa. And vicey versewise. In absence of an agreed-upon hermeneutic, "clear" too is cheap theatrics devoid of content.
It is infallible (note I didn't actually use the word inerrant) but that doesn't mean that the objective meaning is always easy to grasp.
quote:No, it assumes that it would be possible for us to do this most of the time but not all of the time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
This assumes it is always possible for us to come to a mutual understanding of what they mean in a given instance. I'd say that the history of the church is proof against that.
quote:Case in point.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'm sorry but if you can't be civil why do you expect others to converse with you?
I can't see why it is so hard to grasp that some people apply the same to the bible.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:You've been reading too much Derrida and Foucault.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In fact I do not at all doubt that some people apply the same to the bible. I just think that if we are unable to guarantee an infallable interpretation, then the infallability of the Bible is not worth anything. It's like saying you have gold, but you just can't spend it or use it or touch it or enjoy it.
What is the use of the Bible? It's to (a) teach us about God, and (b) teach us how to live our lives. No? If there is no surefire way to reach an agreement on what it says about those two things, then the word "infallable" is disposable. It is cheap theatrics and doesn't mean anything.
quote:Okay, fair enough challenge and here is a start:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:How do you know when you have the "objective" meaning? Come up with a set of criteria that we all can agree on. It's way too easy to grasp any number of different meanings. That's the problem. What's clear to you is unclear to Bob, and completely opaque to Lisa. And vicey versewise. In absence of an agreed-upon hermeneutic, "clear" too is cheap theatrics devoid of content.
It is infallible (note I didn't actually use the word inerrant) but that doesn't mean that the objective meaning is always easy to grasp.
quote:It really doesn't matter what causes disagreement if we can't agree.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think that church history teaches us that there are other issues on top of hermeneutics going on here though. Any institution, like the state church for instance, has a self-interest to preserve the status quo. Doesn't make it wrong per se just worth acknowledging that there is a lot more than just comprehension going on here.
quote:I'm sorry, but if I feel insulted, and you respond with "if you feel insulted it's because you can't understand me." Not "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you." No, it's my fault. -- Just incredible.
Case in point.
You took my statement above the wrong way and so took exception to it.
quote:There's nothing to understand here. I DO get what Leo was saying. As I said.
You assumed an authorial intent to my communication but were mistaken in your assumption. My comment above was not meant to be snarky but simply an honest expression of puzzlement as to what it is exactly that you don't get about what Lep is saying. I still don't fully understand.
quote:Never read any of either.
You've been reading too much Derrida and Foucault.
quote:Just as I have said above, this just shows that you really don't get where I'm coming from. We can communicate close enough (and it's very hard even then, if we are using words differently or come from different presuppositions).
Acknowledging the limitations of language does not mean that we have to give up entirely on objective communication.
Indeed if you were to be consistent I can't really see why you would bother to post anything on the ship at all? If what you say is true then surely the only reason why anyone would discuss anything on SOF would be to troll?
quote:That's fine but hardly demonstrates that we will get anywhere near this goal. That's what you need to convince me of.
Originally posted by mousethief:
We could begin with authorial intent and community understanding. So, our aim in studying 1 Corinthians (for example) would to work towards what we think Paul meant when he wrote it and what we think his original recipients would have understood him to say in it.
There is still some way to go after that in how it applies to us today, but I think this is a realistic goal to work towards.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It really doesn't matter what causes disagreement if we can't agree.
How is that not the statement of someone who does not want to agree? Surely highlighting the causes of disagreement is one of the major steps towards understanding?quote:Sigh.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm sorry, but if I feel insulted, and you respond with "if you feel insulted it's because you can't understand me." Not "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you." No, it's my fault. -- Just incredible.
quote:The point is that I don't think that you are getting what Lep is saying (or me).
Originally posted by mousethief:
We can communicate close enough (and it's very hard even then, if we are using words differently or come from different presuppositions).
But "close enough" isn't close enough for "infallable."
Two completely different things.
quote:More than useless, infallibile but inaccessible seems like it would create big theological problems. Similar to YEC actually. A god who makes sure everything is written down perfectly but doesn't keep it up to date, per se, seems pretty dumb, or perhaps is just pulling a prank on us all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that's not good enough for an infallible Bible. There is no "close enough" if it's truly infallible. If you think it says X and I think it says not-X, then one (or both) of us is wrong, and without an infallible way to determine which, then the infallibility of the Bible is inaccessible to us. It does us no good.
quote:Johnny, the point here is that a useful form of infallibility precludes genuine disagreement occurring. For these purposes the reason behind the disagreement is irrelevant. The mere fact of its existence is enough.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:You're still confusing two issues here though - ISTM.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't believe anybody's posts here are infallable. Some people believe the Bible is. The same level of certainty in discerning the true meaning of the communications is not required for these two things.
Look, just come up with the criteria that we can use to determine what a bible verse or pericope "really" means. Ready steady go. If you can't, then that says something. And I believe you can't, nor can I, because it's impossible to do that in such a way that we all (let's just say all us Trinitarians) can agree to. Which renders infallibility moot.
quote:Now, of course, the bit about the bible being divinely inspired is a matter of faith. That is an a priori assumption. We can discuss that as a separate issue if you want to. However, given that assumption we then study it using all the same tools we use to communicate on the ship. It's harder in that we have greater distance between authors and recipients, but then we also have the church community to help us in this task.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It doesn't mean we can't communicate on the ship. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. What is said on the ship doesn't matter the way what is said in the Bible. Nobody is going to base their life on it. Nobody is claiming it's the word of God. Nobody is claiming it's infallible. So if we screw up in the interpretation, or we're a little sloppy, or we talk past each other, it's really not a big deal. There's a "close enough" and if we can reach the close enough, that's close enough. For the most part we can understand one another well enough for all intents and purposes. We can hash things out, and if we just can't come to a meeting of minds, we can agree to disagree and go on our way.
But that's not good enough for an infallible Bible. There is no "close enough" if it's truly infallible. If you think it says X and I think it says not-X, then one (or both) of us is wrong, and without an infallible way to determine which, then the infallibility of the Bible is inaccessible to us. It does us no good.
quote:Enough for what? Reason enough to suggest that infallibility does not necessarily preclude disagreement. Yes. No one is disputing that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Johnny, the point here is that a useful form of infallibility precludes genuine disagreement occurring. For these purposes the reason behind the disagreement is irrelevant. The mere fact of its existence is enough.
quote:Agreed. So the fact the phrase 'useful form of infallibility' is quite possibly another way of saying that I don't like the reality that exists. It tells us nothing about whether infallibility actually does exist though.
Originally posted by orfeo:
That doesn't actually say anything one way or another about whether anyone is happy that the disagreement exists. There are lots of things that I wish didn't exist, but they still do.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Still no criteria. Without that, it's all gas.
quote:I've twice given you criteria and you've twice dimissed them. The irony that you then proceed to use them to continue the discussion seems to be lost on you.
...given that assumption we then study it using all the same tools we use to communicate on the ship.
quote:Yes I see the difference. Do you honestly not see that, for some, the one follows from the other?
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: It's not about whether it's divinely inspired. It's about whether it's infallible. Do you honestly not see the difference?
quote:Not at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it tells us that infallibility, if it does exist, is not remotely useful to us.
If genuine disagreements are able to arise despite infallibility, then infallibility is no help in resolving the disagreement either. There is no guarantee that out of 2 competing interpretations we will collectively end up settling on the 'correct' one.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How do we pick the tools?
How do we pick the tools with any communication? I hadn't noticed this stopping your output on the Ship.![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Well, with a considerable trace of irony I note that we now to need to work on defining the word 'useful'. Because you seem to be, ahem, using it in a way that I'm not understanding.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Not at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it tells us that infallibility, if it does exist, is not remotely useful to us.
If genuine disagreements are able to arise despite infallibility, then infallibility is no help in resolving the disagreement either. There is no guarantee that out of 2 competing interpretations we will collectively end up settling on the 'correct' one.
All you need to do is to consider the alternative to see that it is useful (i.e. the alternative that there is no 'correct' one.)
If we are not even aiming for the same goal then we have nothing to help us. Then you're left with tools like democracy to change the world.
Judging on the track record of humanity I'll take the 'uselessness' of infallibility over the random impulses of the mob any day.
quote:My output on the ship isn't meant to be infallible. This is a crucial distinction I'm not sure you get. (Because I've said it multiple times and you still haven't picked up on it.) In order to produce an infallible interpretation of an infallible Bible, our choice of tools is crucial in a way that our choice of tools in writing on an online BBS is not. This seems fundamental and near-axiomatic.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Oh really? You sure about that? I somehow see a big shadow looming on the other side of the debating table.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The kingdom DID pass away. For many years. The promise was not kept.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:But it will. Christ is David's greater son and his kingdom will not pass away.(The Bible says so.)
Mousethief: He also promised David a permanent and plenary patrilinear* line of kings. That didn't happen either.
quote:Hey - this is really the issue that Mousethief raised with me earlier.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Johnny, the point here is that a useful form of infallibility precludes genuine disagreement occurring. For these purposes the reason behind the disagreement is irrelevant. The mere fact of its existence is enough.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Even if we grant that Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic throne (which is okay by me) it is still the case that the kingship died between the Maccabbean revolution and the birth of Christ. In contrast to the words of the promise.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Oh really? You sure about that? I somehow see a big shadow looming on the other side of the debating table.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The promise was not kept.
quote:This is post hoc ergo propter hoc. They might agree on more than they disagree without the originals being infallible at all.
Leprechaun averred:
The fact is that infallibility does usefully limit what we disagree over (as evidenced by the fact that lots of people who agree on infallibility agree on much more than they disagree.)
quote:But if we don't know how to interpret them, how do we know what it is God wants us to know? And if we can't unpack what it is God wants us to know, what good does knowing that in this black box (or perhaps translucent box) is something God wants us to know, even though we don't have a key to unlock it?
To me the idea of infallibility means that the words we have in Scripture actually represent what God wants us to know (much as we may disagree how to interpret them).
quote:No. Without an infallible interpretation, an infallible Bible is a locked box. "Inside this box is what God wants you to know. You just can't open it. You can see a little through the lid, but can't make out the words, or at least people disagree and sometimes violently on what it actually says, having looked through the same lid. God wants us to know something, we just don't know how to figure out what that something is."
Does that make sense?
quote:But that isn't the key issue with infallibility.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if we don't know how to interpret them, how do we know what it is God wants us to know?
quote:I'm not sure infallibility quite comes into it. I assume that all people talking to me are trying to express their view of reality, until there's some evidence that they're trying to pull a fast one on me.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Hey - this is really the issue that Mousethief raised with me earlier.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Johnny, the point here is that a useful form of infallibility precludes genuine disagreement occurring. For these purposes the reason behind the disagreement is irrelevant. The mere fact of its existence is enough.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Who is to say "useful infallibility" would preclude genuine disagreement?
The fact is that infallibility does usefully limit what we disagree over (as evidenced by the fact that lots of people who agree on infallibility agree on much more than they disagree.)
To me the idea of infallibility means that the words we have in Scripture actually represent what God wants us to know (much as we may disagree how to interpret them).
Now, while interpreting someone's state of mind from their words is always a complex business, the interpretive (interpratative?) possibilities are much limited if I believe the person is at least trying to express their view of reality. If the words are a true reflection of what they think, then that rules out all the possible interpretations that conflict with their words.
Does that make sense?
Infallibility isn't THE tool that gives us the truth. But it is one tool.
quote:So the key issue is for us to be able to say it's infallible, not to be able to know what it's actually saying to us? If infallibility leading to our rightly determining what to believe about God and how to live our lives isn't the point of infallibility, what the hell is?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:But that isn't the key issue with infallibility.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if we don't know how to interpret them, how do we know what it is God wants us to know?
quote:Which theological problems?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
I would love a reply, Johnny, explaining how a Bible which is infallible but we can't be sure of what it says and/or means doesn't cause the huge theological problems like I mentioned above.
quote:If we have no way of reliably telling what it says, this is moot.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The issue is one of authority -are we prepared to obey what it says?
quote:I can't speak for Lep, but 'Yep' that is what I'm saying.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If what you're trying to say is that 'infallibility' involves the belief that the Bible accurately conveys GOD'S view of reality, well yes, that's highly important.
quote:Aren't you taking issue with the incarnation here? Accommodation has at its very heart this vulnerability of communication. The word became flesh.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But if that's the case, then in a PRACTICAL sense God has left a lot of room for misunderstandings and ambiguities. Either God is doing a poor job of speaking to us, or some of us are doing a really poor job of listening. People are equally convinced that 'God has told them' mutually inconsistent things.
quote:More irony here, because now we're going to have to clarify 'incarnation' and 'word'. I thought we were talking about the Bible, not about Jesus.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Aren't you taking issue with the incarnation here? Accommodation has at its very heart this vulnerability of communication. The word became flesh.
quote:How do we know anything about Jesus other than through words?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:More irony here, because now we're going to have to clarify 'incarnation' and 'word'. I thought we were talking about the Bible, not about Jesus.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Aren't you taking issue with the incarnation here? Accommodation has at its very heart this vulnerability of communication. The word became flesh.
But aside from that, I'm really taking issue with LANGUAGE having at its very heart this vulnerability of communication. See my sig. As soon as God chose to convey things via words rather than by implanting ideas directly into people's brains, things got terribly tricky.
quote:What's impractical when you have omnipotence on yoru side?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Can you suggest a better alternative method that God could have used? (And one that is practically credible.)
quote:I would have thought that the no. 1 qualification for omnipotence was that you are not bound to make the world the way pjkirk wants you to.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:What's impractical when you have omnipotence on yoru side?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Can you suggest a better alternative method that God could have used? (And one that is practically credible.)
quote:No, certainly not. But, if you're a God, and you want to get your point across, it helps to do it right. Certainly relying on 2,600 year old texts which are technically infallible but very unclear (and contradictory often enough) isn't a great policy. It certainly helps your case as the source of morals/righteousness/love/etc if they know what they should be doing and not doing, especially when potential eternal damnation is the cost of a misunderstanding.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:I would have thought that the no. 1 qualification for omnipotence was that you are not bound to make the world the way pjkirk wants you to.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:What's impractical when you have omnipotence on yoru side?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Can you suggest a better alternative method that God could have used? (And one that is practically credible.)
quote:How about: As soon as God had to resort to conveying things via words rather than by implanting ideas directly into people's brains, things got terribly tricky.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As soon as God chose to convey things via words rather than by implanting ideas directly into people's brains, things got terribly tricky.
quote:I take it you don't believe in prophecy or words of knowledge, then.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think that it is possible to implant ideas directly into people's brains.
quote:That does rather depend on the primary purpose of Scripture. If it's to impart an instruction manual on ethics and doctrine you're probably right - especially as the small selection of laws we have in Scripture don't cover many aspects of modern life, and are thus frankly almost irrelevant.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
But, if you're a God, and you want to get your point across, it helps to do it right. Certainly relying on 2,600 year old texts which are technically infallible but very unclear (and contradictory often enough) isn't a great policy. It certainly helps your case as the source of morals/righteousness/love/etc if they know what they should be doing and not doing, especially when potential eternal damnation is the cost of a misunderstanding.
To do less would be downright negligent.
quote:An excellent way of looking at it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That does rather depend on the primary purpose of Scripture. If it's to impart an instruction manual on ethics and doctrine you're probably right - especially as the small selection of laws we have in Scripture don't cover many aspects of modern life, and are thus frankly almost irrelevant.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
But, if you're a God, and you want to get your point across, it helps to do it right. Certainly relying on 2,600 year old texts which are technically infallible but very unclear (and contradictory often enough) isn't a great policy. It certainly helps your case as the source of morals/righteousness/love/etc if they know what they should be doing and not doing, especially when potential eternal damnation is the cost of a misunderstanding.
To do less would be downright negligent.
On the other hand, if the purpose is to help us understand God, and hence work out what He's most likely to be pleased with so that we can live that way, then the argument is different. You'll know virtually nothing about the author of an instruction manual from that manual. You'll get to know them much better by reading a biography, and even better if you can read several from different perspectives, what others think of the handbook author, and their random musings on their blog.
We all know that we can know something about the personalities of other people we interact with here on the Ship. That our posts are often unclear, and sometimes contradictory, doesn't mean that we're not getting true impressions of the people who write them. Certainly well enough that many of us know the hot buttons that will get reactions out of others, allowing us to make decisions about how we post such that we don't insult those we're talking with.
Of course, that all depends on assuming that people post here in good faith and their words faithfully reflect who they are and what they think. You could say, that their words have an element of infallibility.
If we can know that through what people post here, why shouldn't we be able to know God in a similar way through Scripture? If our knowledge of people here is sufficient to guide us in our interactions to avoid giving offence, why shouldn't our knowledge of God through Scripture be insufficient to avoid giving him offence?
quote:One last go. Mousethief, this is true about any communication using words. (Any communication at all actually!)
Originally posted by mousethief:
No. Without an infallible interpretation, an infallible Bible is a locked box. "Inside this box is what God wants you to know. You just can't open it. You can see a little through the lid, but can't make out the words, or at least people disagree and sometimes violently on what it actually says, having looked through the same lid. God wants us to know something, we just don't know how to figure out what that something is."
quote:A fallible Bible doesn't need an infallible interpretation, and indeed it makes no sense to link those two together. Which is what you keep trying to do when you compare interpreting an infallible Bible to interpreting an ordinary communication.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But a fallible Bible without an infallible interpretation is even further away.
quote:Well - the practical usefulness in that scenario is that the infallibility tool allows you to say "one test if it really does say X is if it says something contradicting X elsewhere, then it can't be saying X".
Originally posted by mousethief:
As person C, who is not sure if the Bible says X or not X, but is willing to listen to both eprson A and person B, what would be the practical difference between those two scenarios, as far as determining whether you should believe A or B?
quote:Where do you get that from?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I take it you don't believe in prophecy or words of knowledge, then.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think that it is possible to implant ideas directly into people's brains.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:No. God over rules the use of natural human thought processes so that the human writing faithfully communicates the divine. The concept of both human and divine without the one subsuming the other is hardly a novel concept to the Christian faith.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if God can't implant ideas directly into people's brains, then how did we end up with an infallible Bible? God using a dictaphone?
quote:So you do think God used people as dictophones?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No. God over rules the use of natural human thought processes so that the human writing faithfully communicates the divine. The concept of both human and divine without the one subsuming the other is hardly a novel concept to the Christian faith.
quote:You are saying some very odd things.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Where do you get that from?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I take it you don't believe in prophecy or words of knowledge, then.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think that it is possible to implant ideas directly into people's brains.
Words of knowledge are made up of words, as the bible is. The clue is name.
quote:No. God over rules the use of natural human thought processes so that the human writing faithfully communicates the divine. The concept of both human and divine without the one subsuming the other is hardly a novel concept to the Christian faith.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if God can't implant ideas directly into people's brains, then how did we end up with an infallible Bible? God using a dictaphone?
quote:You mean it would prevent someone saying that the reality is that two of every species weren't confined in a small wooden boat for forty days? That outcome suggests that infallibility isn't a very useful tool if you want to keep a grip on reality.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But even if you don't accept that, it's sure useful to rule out the situation you didn't describe where someone says
"The Bible says X but I believe reality is Y" where Y and X are mutually exclusive.
quote:Well actually, just the fact that someone is not lying means the answer is yes. Or at least, it means the person honestly believes the answer is yes.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In reality, what we always do when people use words is try to work out what they are communicating. One of the questions we ask in that process is "Is this true?"
Infallibility means that the answer to that question is always yes. It answers that question, not the others.
quote:Infallibility gently suggests to you, Pre-cambrian, that you should be open to the possibility that you are seeing reality wrong.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:You mean it would prevent someone saying that the reality is that two of every species weren't confined in a small wooden boat for forty days? That outcome suggests that infallibility isn't a very useful tool if you want to keep a grip on reality.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But even if you don't accept that, it's sure useful to rule out the situation you didn't describe where someone says
"The Bible says X but I believe reality is Y" where Y and X are mutually exclusive.
quote:I don't see that anybody on this thread is either doing or condoning that. I believe the name for this fallacy is "straw man".
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But even if you don't accept that, it's sure useful to rule out the situation you didn't describe where someone says
"The Bible says X but I believe reality is Y" where Y and X are mutually exclusive.
quote:He just did it in such a way that we can't always be sure what He meant. At which point the "faithfully" comes under scrutiny.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
God over rules the use of natural human thought processes so that the human writing faithfully communicates the divine. The concept of both human and divine without the one subsuming the other is hardly a novel concept to the Christian faith.
quote:Except of course for glossalalia, at least for certain understandings of that phenomenon.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And your remark about words of knowledge is utterly silly - which I think you know. The tongue doesn't go around forming words all on its own.
quote:Okay! Okay! We see it!
See. My. Sig.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I can't speak for orfeo but from where I sit, there are two reasons:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't see why an acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture would need to produce wince-inducing peculiar interpretations. At least, I don't see why the interpretations of someone who believes in the infallibilty of Scripture would necessarily be more wince-inducing and peculiar than those of someone who doesn't believe Scripture is infallible.
quote:Dropping back from necessity to contingency, that's not an interpretation that infallibleites are wont to accept.
Does that interpretation seem peculiar and wince-inducing? Because it's one that can be held perfectly reasonably by someone who accepts the infallibility of Scripture. The question is simply one of recognising the genre of any given passage.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see that anybody on this thread is either doing or condoning that. I believe the name for this fallacy is "straw man".
I didn't say any one on this thread was doing this.quote:Yes. I have read your sig. Hermeneutics is complicated. I get that. I didn't choose the X and Y terminology, I was merely responding to it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well actually, just the fact that someone is not lying means the answer is yes. Or at least, it means the person honestly believes the answer is yes.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In reality, what we always do when people use words is try to work out what they are communicating. One of the questions we ask in that process is "Is this true?"
Infallibility means that the answer to that question is always yes. It answers that question, not the others.
I suppose the infallibility of God means you can guarantee that His belief in what He's communicating to you is a justified one. Which does get you to the right result, albeit through a slightly different route.
However, there still remains a serious stumbling block in your communication route. The question "is this true" is tremendously abstract. Every time you actually ask this question in your head in real life, you go through a process of defining what "this" is.
Any time you say "is this true?", my instinctive response (analytical bastard that I am) will be to shoot back "is WHAT true?".
And that's where the problem lies. The definition of "this" lies in the interpretation of the listener. Based on what they thought the speaker said, yes, but we all know it's perfectly possible for 2 listeners to come away with different impressions from the listening to the same speaker.
As you've illustrated in a subseqent post, you can get rid of direct contradictions. But that simply doesn't solve much. Again, use of abstract algebra of "X" and "not X" simply isn't a true reflection of the complex ideas that are in the Bible. It will only get you past the really simple ones.
As previously mentioned, one need only take a look through Dead Horses. One can pit my deep and sincere conviction that the Bible says nothing against homosexuality and homosexual behaviour per se with other people's equally deep and sincere conviction that homosexual behaviour is intrinsically morally wrong. "X" and "not X". Taken from reading the same Bible. The same words, but with differing opinions about the ideas those words are intended to convey.
And that's why it doesn't work. "X" and "not X" are ideas. The Bible is written in words, not ideas. See. My. Sig.
quote:Nope, that interpretation doesn't induce wincing. Mousethief has pretty well covered it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't see why an acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture would need to produce wince-inducing peculiar interpretations. At least, I don't see why the interpretations of someone who believes in the infallibilty of Scripture would necessarily be more wince-inducing and peculiar than those of someone who doesn't believe Scripture is infallible.
Just to take the Noah's Ark story as an example already raised. It seems to me that an interpretation that says it's a mythical account (potentially based on an actual flood of limited extent, with a family of survivors and some livestock saved because they had access to a boat) included in Scripture to remind the people of Israel of the holiness of God and his urge to destroy sin coupled with his mercy to save - a truth that was repeatedly demonstrated as the people of Israel sinned and were punished in the wilderness and throughout the occupation of the Promised Land upto and beyond the Exile. And, a truth that's repeated in other myths in those early chapters of Scripture - Babel, Sodom and Gommorah etc.
Does that interpretation seem peculiar and wince-inducing? Because it's one that can be held perfectly reasonably by someone who accepts the infallibility of Scripture. The question is simply one of recognising the genre of any given passage.
quote:No I'm not saying that at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are saying some very odd things.
You already agreed with the suggestion that infallibility means the Bible expresses God's views on reality, right? God's ideas.
So they are not the authors' own ideas.
So how did the ideas get into the authors' heads?
To say "God over rules the use of human natural thought processes" seems to be a terribly oblique away of saying exactly what I said: that God controls the ideas. He put them into the authors' heads. [Multiple authors obviously, not 1 author with multiple heads.] The author may control the words, but again, see my sig. It's there for reasons that highly pertinent to this thread.
quote:Again you are attacking a straw man here. The words the speakers use are their own words (although, as MT points out, the kind of 'heavenly language' of 1 Cor. 13 doesn't quite fit here) but the inspiration comes from God. Even within the NT words of prophecy were to be tested - which again counters this kind of 'divine dictation' that you seem to be setting up just to knock down.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And your remark about words of knowledge is utterly silly - which I think you know. The tongue doesn't go around forming words all on its own. A person speaks a word of knowledge or a prophecy because the idea is inside their head. If you believe in such things (which I do), then the idea is inside their head because God put it there. Indeed, the entire point of a 'word of knowledge' is that it can't possibly have originated inside the speaker, because the speaker didn't possess the necessary information to form it.
quote:Light is both a wave and a particle.
Originally posted by mousethief:
1. Infallibleites have to reconcile apparently contradictory verses which requires some bit of contortion;
2. Infallibleites have to (or at least do) accept as "true" some things which on their face are absurd.
quote:What's the difference between 'inspiration' and 'ideas', then?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No I'm not saying that at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are saying some very odd things.
You already agreed with the suggestion that infallibility means the Bible expresses God's views on reality, right? God's ideas.
So they are not the authors' own ideas.
So how did the ideas get into the authors' heads?
To say "God over rules the use of human natural thought processes" seems to be a terribly oblique away of saying exactly what I said: that God controls the ideas. He put them into the authors' heads. [Multiple authors obviously, not 1 author with multiple heads.] The author may control the words, but again, see my sig. It's there for reasons that highly pertinent to this thread.
This is evangelical doctrine 101. I can dig up notes from theological college decades ago saying this.
Evangelicals are not Muslims. They do not accept a kind of 'automatic writing' where Allah dictates to Muhammad what to write.
The biblical authors wrote entirely what they wanted to write. The ideas are entirely their ideas, writing in their culture, the way anybody would.
However, at the same time God works sovereignly so that what we end up with is his divine revelation. I don't see how the question - but isn't it human to be fallible? need to apply to the bible any differently than it does to Jesus.
The fact that you find my comments odd and silly strongly suggests that you have not come across this doctrine clearly stated before. As i said, all I'm saying is evangelical doctrine of scripture 101. I think you should work on getting a decent grasp on what the doctrine is before you attack it.
quote:Again you are attacking a straw man here. The words the speakers use are their own words (although, as MT points out, the kind of 'heavenly language' of 1 Cor. 13 doesn't quite fit here) but the inspiration comes from God. Even within the NT words of prophecy were to be tested - which again counters this kind of 'divine dictation' that you seem to be setting up just to knock down.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And your remark about words of knowledge is utterly silly - which I think you know. The tongue doesn't go around forming words all on its own. A person speaks a word of knowledge or a prophecy because the idea is inside their head. If you believe in such things (which I do), then the idea is inside their head because God put it there. Indeed, the entire point of a 'word of knowledge' is that it can't possibly have originated inside the speaker, because the speaker didn't possess the necessary information to form it.
quote:I can't see in the least how this is relevant. Are you saying the Bible is both infallible and not infallible? Schroedinger's bible? Are you saying that Jesus can eat the one unique last supper on both Friday and Thursday? What are you saying? How is it relevant to the conversation thus far?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Light is both a wave and a particle.
quote:This is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've answered it. Because science doesn't claim to be infallible. Science can chop and change (and should and will). If God's message is infallible, how can it change? He is the same yesterday and today and all that. We don't get "new data" to change the theory. If Bible is infallible, it means something and its meaning is fixed, I should think. At least that's what all the people who use the term "infallible" that I've heard say.
Because I'm not infallible I'm not sure whether this is the second or third time I've asked this question - MT why doesn't your position logically dismiss the pursuit of science as useful?
quote:The way you have been using 'idea' God plants an alien notion into our mind rather like sending a text message.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's the difference between 'inspiration' and 'ideas', then?
quote:Apologies, I can see why I thought you hadn't answered my question now.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I can't see in the least how this is relevant. Are you saying the Bible is both infallible and not infallible? Schroedinger's bible? Are you saying that Jesus can eat the one unique last supper on both Friday and Thursday? What are you saying? How is it relevant to the conversation thus far?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Light is both a wave and a particle.
quote:This is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've answered it. Because science doesn't claim to be infallible. Science can chop and change (and should and will). If God's message is infallible, how can it change? He is the same yesterday and today and all that. We don't get "new data" to change the theory. If Bible is infallible, it means something and its meaning is fixed, I should think. At least that's what all the people who use the term "infallible" that I've heard say.
Because I'm not infallible I'm not sure whether this is the second or third time I've asked this question - MT why doesn't your position logically dismiss the pursuit of science as useful?
Actually it doesn't dismiss the Bible as useful either. The Bible can be quite useful without being infallible.
quote:Stop. Illegal procedure. 10 yards from line of scrimmage. Down over.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The Scientific endeavour is based on the assumption that there is an objective reality out there to know. By way of analogy it is that objective reality that I am comparing to infallibility - to truly know objective reality.
However, in our attempts to understand and explain reality we come up with apparently absurd and contradictory statements, like those about light. My point is that no one concludes from these contradictions that there is no 'infallible' reality.
quote:I haven't given up anything. See above for the absurdity of using "infallible" about the physical world as studied by science. I didn't say anything about giving up on trying to understand the Bible. But my hermeneutic is quite different from yours, in part because I don't have this "infallibility" shibboleth hanging around my neck like an albatross. And also because I don't have the "sola scriptura" imperative either. And because my model of salvation is not dependent upon understanding the nuances of biblical messages about salvation.
My question was meant to be this - mutually contradictory models and statements do not cause scientists to give up on their quest to understand the 'infallible' reality of the world, why should it cause you to give up your quest to understand God's infallible word?
quote:Well, not if you think doing science and doing Biblical interpretation are analagous and that the physical world is "infallible". Of course not.
Now, of course, none of this gives any evidence at all that the bible really is infallible, I just don't see the logical inconsistency that you and Orfeo seem to see.
quote:Whoa. Big claims demand big proofs, as the atheists say. Go for it.
The bible is of no use at all, apart from as great literature, if it is not infallible.
quote:If we are using sporting analogies then quit moving the goal-posts. You switch between arguments about God and arguments about the bible at the speed of light.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Stop. Illegal procedure. 10 yards from line of scrimmage. Down over.
quote:I know. That is why I use the word analogy. God was the infallible thing I was talking about. The bible the means to know him.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody thinks the physical world is infallible. That's a category error.
quote:Yes, and people who think that God is not THERE are generally called atheists.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The physical world is THERE. This is a miserable analogy to the infallibility of the Bible. The Bible, too, is just THERE. Infallibility adds another layer that isn't added to science.
quote:And, of course, one can very easily say that the wearing of hats was a cultural expectation of the time, and therefore doesn't necessarily hold today (unless you're in part of society, or certain events, where respectable women wear hats). There's no reason why someone who accepts the infallibility of Scripture would have any problems with that approach.
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the examples of wincing I've encountered is when people try to explain why women don't really have to wear hats in church. Non-wincing is to explain the relevant passage in the context of the time and the soceity, eg that respectable women wore hats everywhere. Wincing occurs when people start trying to say things like the covering of a woman's head is either her hair or her husband...
quote:Well, I have, but apparently you missed it. You certainly haven't refuted it.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For a Christian God is THERE in the same way that the physical world is THERE. At that point we come to an epistemological question about how we know him. I'm happy to discuss that question if you want to, but you still haven't shown why infallibility is inconsistent or some kind of category error.
quote:Sorry, all I can find you saying is "Infallibility isn't very useful because there is no infallible interpretation". When I answered your post about this, you ignored most of my post and then accused me of setting up straw men about people on this thread when I had done nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Well, I have, but apparently you missed it. You certainly haven't refuted it.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For a Christian God is THERE in the same way that the physical world is THERE. At that point we come to an epistemological question about how we know him. I'm happy to discuss that question if you want to, but you still haven't shown why infallibility is inconsistent or some kind of category error.
quote:A subset of the problem at most. And for when it doesn't shake out this easily, how is it useful?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well - the practical usefulness in that scenario is that the infallibility tool allows you to say "one test if it really does say X is if it says something contradicting X elsewhere, then it can't be saying X".
quote:Since we're not making much progress here, why don't we put it the other way round - how do you think we know God?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Well, I have, but apparently you missed it. You certainly haven't refuted it.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For a Christian God is THERE in the same way that the physical world is THERE. At that point we come to an epistemological question about how we know him. I'm happy to discuss that question if you want to, but you still haven't shown why infallibility is inconsistent or some kind of category error.
quote:But this was the point of my scientific paradigm analogy.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And really, if we have a situation where the Bible appears to say X here, and appears to say not-X there, how will the infallibility "tool" tell us which one to accept at face value, in order to work out an alternate interpretation/explanation of the other?
quote:Primarily, first and foremost. But there are other places/ways. God did send His Spirit. This is a very Protestant answer, I think, in its incompleteness.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The Christian response is that God has revealed himself in the person of his Son.
quote:But that's just it. If you don't know how to interpret the Bible, its infallibility doesn't help you here at all. The infallibility of the Bible imparts no confidence if we cannot say with confidence that it says one thing and not the opposite.
If I don't have that confidence then the whole process breaks down.
quote:But you know what answer I will give to this: through His church.
So how do you know God with the degree of confidence necessary to trust him and to obey him?
quote:And how exactly does God ensure that inspiration works? Given that no planting is allowed. If God does not speak to the authors in any shape or form, I don't see how you can get to a point where you are confident that God's message is revealed.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:The way you have been using 'idea' God plants an alien notion into our mind rather like sending a text message.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's the difference between 'inspiration' and 'ideas', then?
Inspiration means that the writer, as they convey their own ideas, also truly reveals the character and purposes of God.
quote:I presume that is the same holy Spirit whose prophecies Paul tells the Thessalonians to test in 1 Thess. 5 v 21?
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, but the Holy Spirit, in the life of the Church and particularly in the life of her saints, is.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that's just it. If you don't know how to interpret the Bible, its infallibility doesn't help you here at all. The infallibility of the Bible imparts no confidence if we cannot say with confidence that it says one thing and not the opposite.
So you cannot trust something unless you understand it exhaustively? Sounds like you want a domesticated God that you can put in your pocket.quote:Well then, you'll know the answer I'll give to you as well ...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:But you know what answer I will give to this: through His church.
So how do you know God with the degree of confidence necessary to trust him and to obey him?
quote:No more lucky than the incarnation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Basically my concern with the position you are putting is that I can't discern any active role for God in the process of writing the Bible. You have human authors expressing human ideas, and they managed to nail the character and purposes of God? Golly, that was lucky wasn't it?
quote:I didn't say exhaustively. Infallibly. Have you read what I've been writing? Where did I ever say exhaustively? Sounds like you want a domesticated debate partner you can put in your pocket.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that's just it. If you don't know how to interpret the Bible, its infallibility doesn't help you here at all. The infallibility of the Bible imparts no confidence if we cannot say with confidence that it says one thing and not the opposite.
quote:Um... I'm fairly sure that God is usually given some credit for making the incarnation occur. That's my point. You seem to be presenting a position on the Bible that gives God no credit for making the Bible occur.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No more lucky than the incarnation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Basically my concern with the position you are putting is that I can't discern any active role for God in the process of writing the Bible. You have human authors expressing human ideas, and they managed to nail the character and purposes of God? Golly, that was lucky wasn't it?
I think it is fair enough to ask the question but I don't see any qualitative difference to asking how Mary conceived the Son of God.
quote:Yes you did.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I didn't say exhaustively.
quote:And I thought that a miracle was, by definition, something that has no rational explanation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
]Um... I'm fairly sure that God is usually given some credit for making the incarnation occur. That's my point. You seem to be presenting a position on the Bible that gives God no credit for making the Bible occur.
quote:I'm going to assume you're not arguing that the work of the Holy Spirit is infallible. You have no problem with the Infallible producing something that is Fallible - you've just said that fallible tradition is the work of the infallible Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by mousethief:
We define "tradition" as the working of the Holy Spirit in the church -- and the Holy Spirit is of course infallible.
quote:So you're starting with the assumption that the bible is an infallible document -- that's axiomatic for you. There's no other way of interpreting your first paragraph that makes sense.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:And I thought that a miracle was, by definition, something that has no rational explanation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
]Um... I'm fairly sure that God is usually given some credit for making the incarnation occur. That's my point. You seem to be presenting a position on the Bible that gives God no credit for making the Bible occur.
That fallible human beings could come up with an infallible document is not natural - for it to be true it demands supernatural origin.
The same is also true for the virgin birth - that a human being could give birth to God is not natural - it demands a supernatural origin.
The fact that you choose to believe one without knowing the process and not the other is relatively arbitrary.
quote:A supernatural origin for the ideas expressed in the Bible is precisely what I said, and you pooh-poohed it.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:And I thought that a miracle was, by definition, something that has no rational explanation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
]Um... I'm fairly sure that God is usually given some credit for making the incarnation occur. That's my point. You seem to be presenting a position on the Bible that gives God no credit for making the Bible occur.
That fallible human beings could come up with an infallible document is not natural - for it to be true it demands supernatural origin.
The same is also true for the virgin birth - that a human being could give birth to God is not natural - it demands a supernatural origin.
The fact that you choose to believe one without knowing the process and not the other is relatively arbitrary.
quote:Yes that it true. I think that I have some rational reasons for accepting this position but, ultimately, I'm sure it comes down to my axioms.
Originally posted by John Holding:
So you're starting with the assumption that the bible is an infallible document -- that's axiomatic for you. There's no other way of interpreting your first paragraph that makes sense.
quote:This is a DH thread. Almost by definition it concerns an issue where our axioms clash. What I smell here is an attempt to claim the moral high-ground that some axioms are better than others. Maybe you just picked on me arbitrarily but the fact you did certainly gives that impression.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Why then are you participating in a discussion about whether or not the Bible is infallible? From your point of view, the answer is "yes" -- not as the result of discussion or debate or logic or reason or, even, revelation -- it just "is". At least, that's the only way I can interpret the rest of this post.
quote:Again you may well be right, but if so then Alan and others must fit into the same category since Alan's last post was exactly where I was heading.
Originally posted by John Holding:
As participants and lurkers on the thread, I think a number of us have already noticed and noted that you are "discussing" the OP using different assumptions and a wholly different frame of reference to what other people are using.
I don't think there is any point at which you and the others who have been posting so far are even talking about the same thing, using the same language. It's just my opinion, but for what it's worth, this is a dialogue of the deaf that leads nowhere.
John
quote:John, I think you're being rather unfair. The thread is not solely about whether the Bible is infallible. It is also about what 'infallible' actually means.
Originally posted by John Holding:
So you're starting with the assumption that the bible is an infallible document -- that's axiomatic for you. There's no other way of interpreting your first paragraph that makes sense.
Why then are you participating in a discussion about whether or not the Bible is infallible? From your point of view, the answer is "yes" -- not as the result of discussion or debate or logic or reason or, even, revelation -- it just "is". At least, that's the only way I can interpret the rest of this post.
As participants and lurkers on the thread, I think a number of us have already noticed and noted that you are "discussing" the OP using different assumptions and a wholly different frame of reference to what other people are using.
I don't think there is any point at which you and the others who have been posting so far are even talking about the same thing, using the same language. It's just my opinion, but for what it's worth, this is a dialogue of the deaf that leads nowhere.
John
quote:No. I pooh-poohed the notion that God 'planted' the words in the minds of the authors.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A supernatural origin for the ideas expressed in the Bible is precisely what I said, and you pooh-poohed it.
quote:I don't see those as analagous in that way. Church tradition is applied at the individual level by the church's priests who are fallible -- that should be the level at which this argument is aimed. However it is not I who require the Bible (or Tradition) to be infallible -- that is Johnny S's position. My argument with him is that if he requires infallibility, he doesn't get it due to the lack of an infallible interpretation.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Your argument, or at least part of it, has been that Scriptural Infallibility is at best purely theoretical as we can't have an infallible interpretation. You don't apply the same argument that the infallibility of the Holy Spirit is at best theoretical since we can't have an infallible tradition produced by his work.
quote:We are using it metaphorically of the composer. Not so of the authors of the biblical text. This is a lousy argument.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
When a composer comes up with an amazing piece of music we say that he was inspired today. In no way are we suggesting that the composition was not entirely his own work.
quote:Planted the IDEAS, not the words. Significant difference.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No. I pooh-poohed the notion that God 'planted' the words in the minds of the authors.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A supernatural origin for the ideas expressed in the Bible is precisely what I said, and you pooh-poohed it.
When a composer comes up with an amazing piece of music we say that he was inspired today. In no way are we suggesting that the composition was not entirely his own work.
quote:If that is the case then I can't make sense of what you said earlier:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see those as analagous in that way. Church tradition is applied at the individual level by the church's priests who are fallible -- that should be the level at which this argument is aimed. However it is not I who require the Bible (or Tradition) to be infallible -- that is Johnny S's position. My argument with him is that if he requires infallibility, he doesn't get it due to the lack of an infallible interpretation.
quote:All your arguments about 'not obeying something unless you have strong reasons to accept it' apply to your position also. I asked you where you get this kind of assurance from (if not the bible) and you answered - the church.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:But you know what answer I will give to this: through His church.
So how do you know God with the degree of confidence necessary to trust him and to obey him?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We are using it metaphorically of the composer. Not so of the authors of the biblical text. This is a lousy argument.
Where do you think the metaphor originated from in the first place?
quote:No, I'm being consistent to my incarnation analogy. The bible is entirely human (but without 'sin') and entirely divine (but without denying its humanity).
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, you are arguing in contradiction to yourself by demonstrating with the composer example that the source of the inspiration is not the origin. But you want a supernatural origin for the 'inspired' Bible. You cannot sensibly have both of these. If God inspired the Bible authors, then by your own argument the Bible does not have a supernatural origin. It originated with the authors.
quote:Does that make it not a metaphor? No. Why did you even say it then?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We are using it metaphorically of the composer. Not so of the authors of the biblical text. This is a lousy argument.
quote:Frankly, I think the biggest danger of your position is confusing persons with things.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
PS Before anyone points it out I'm aware that the danger of my position is that it could lead to someone elevating the bible to the level of the trinity.
I think that is a fair call since that is a danger that many evangelicals fall into it. However, I don't think it is a necessarily corollary of my position.
quote:I got that you weren't claiming infallibility for Church tradition. You were claiming Church tradition is a working of the Holy Spirit (which I agree with) and that the Spirit is infallible. Thus you were claiming that something of considerable value and importance, Church tradition, can be produced by something infallible even though that's done with the input of fallible human beings and the product is also fallible. This appears to be inconsistent with the position you've stated with regard to the infallibility of Scripture that the lack of an infallible interpretation is an argument against the infallibiltiy of Scripture - you don't seem to be saying that the lack of an infallible Tradition is an argument against the infallibility of the Spirit who works in the Church to produce that Tradition.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I don't see those as analagous in that way. Church tradition is applied at the individual level by the church's priests who are fallible -- that should be the level at which this argument is aimed. However it is not I who require the Bible (or Tradition) to be infallible -- that is Johnny S's position. My argument with him is that if he requires infallibility, he doesn't get it due to the lack of an infallible interpretation.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Your argument, or at least part of it, has been that Scriptural Infallibility is at best purely theoretical as we can't have an infallible interpretation. You don't apply the same argument that the infallibility of the Holy Spirit is at best theoretical since we can't have an infallible tradition produced by his work.
quote:In which case we've reached a dead-end.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And yes the Church as the guardian of Christian theology and ethical teaching is infallible. As we define the Church.
quote:I would call the Bible 'inspired' because I believe that it really is in-breathed by God. I just don't have a clue as to how God did the in-breathing. There's another similar metaphor in the Bible itself; God took handfuls of common dirt and formed a clay figure, He then in-breathed life to that figure to create a living being.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unless you're saying that when we call the Bible "inspired" it's just a metaphor too -- it's not really in-breathed by God?
quote:And, the fundamental difference between that statement and "Scripture as the guardian of Christian theology and ethical teaching is infallible. As we define Scripture" is what? If you're going to axiomatically assume that a bunch of fallible human beings can be infallible, why do you have such difficulty with the axiomatic assumption that a bunch of scribblings from fallible human beings can also be infallible?
And yes the Church as the guardian of Christian theology and ethical teaching is infallible. As we define the Church.
quote:Well, you stated a belief that the Spirit is infallible.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't set up the Holy Spirit as infallible.
quote:Here's a question. You've declared belief in the infallibility of the Church, is that infallibility not embodied by the Tradition of the Church? When the Church has to decide something, a response to changing societal problems or a development of theology as scholarship advances, does it not draw upon Tradition? If so, how are you drawing a line between the Church and Tradition? You seem to be working on an assumption of an infallible Tradition, yet claiming that the earliest parts of that Tradition which in a sense form the foundations of what developed later are not infallible. Am I just totally misunderstanding you when you claim infallibility for the Church?
And really your analogy is off a step. The analogue of the Bible is the Tradition, not the Spirit. The same Spirit produced the scriptures and the other bits of Tradition -- for in orthodoxy we don't divide "tradition" and "Scripture" the way the Anglicans do. For us, scripture is part of the tradition. It is one of the things handed down to us.
quote:Indeed. This is one case where a workman CAN blame his tools.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
How can the Holy Spirit not be infallible? Third person of the Trinity, isn't he?
quote:You quite missed the point of what I was saying.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
How can the Holy Spirit not be infallible? Third person of the Trinity, isn't he?
quote:Ah. Of course. So all your statements about there not being an infallible interpretation were not entirely accurate.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm surprised, Alan, you didn't see where this was going. The scriptures as interpreted by the Orthodox Church are infallible.
quote:My argument was more about the infallible Bible not being useful without an infallible interpretation, and Johnny S's methods not being able to produce one. Not that there isn't one at all.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Ah. Of course. So all your statements about there not being an infallible interpretation were not entirely accurate.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm surprised, Alan, you didn't see where this was going. The scriptures as interpreted by the Orthodox Church are infallible.
quote:It is the bit about the burden of proof being on my position that I don't get. Like Alan I have never claimed that there is an infallible interpretation (not one that is reached by fallible humans that is). Therefore surely the burden of proof rests on MT to demonstrate that an infallible bible is pointless without an infallible interpretation?
Originally posted by mousethief:
My argument was more about the infallible Bible not being useful without an infallible interpretation, and Johnny S's methods not being able to produce one. Not that there isn't one at all.
quote:It's easy to tell if our approximation of the laws of physics work - if they don't, the plane falls out of the air.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That is how society operates in pretty much all other fields of understanding so I'm surprised that there is so much resistance for it to apply to the Christian faith. Other views, IMNSHO, fail the test of a real politik.
quote:I never said so.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Given the axiom that the bible is infallible I don't see why it is logically inconsistent (regardless, for the moment, whether you accept the first axiom or not) to say that there is no infallible interpretation.
quote:In fact, I'm not sure it's so much a test of the laws of physics as a test of the plane and ITS interaction with the laws of physics.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:It's easy to tell if our approximation of the laws of physics work - if they don't, the plane falls out of the air.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That is how society operates in pretty much all other fields of understanding so I'm surprised that there is so much resistance for it to apply to the Christian faith. Other views, IMNSHO, fail the test of a real politik.
Your analogy fails because there is no reasonable test for scripture like this.
quote:As expanded on in my last post, what you really rely on is that the designers of the plane (and possibly the pilots) understood the laws of physics. You personally could believe all sorts of ridiculous things about the laws of physics, but they won't affect the flight of the plane.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Every time I fly back to the UK I put great faith in the laws of physics - I mean these are life and death decisions I'm talking about here. I make them on the assumption that while scientific models are only approximations to absolute reality they are close enough to base my life on.
quote:I don't know about this. When a Church preaches a pile of nonsense it usually shows up loud and clear. The participants may not see it, but those all around can.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:It's easy to tell if our approximation of the laws of physics work - if they don't, the plane falls out of the air.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That is how society operates in pretty much all other fields of understanding so I'm surprised that there is so much resistance for it to apply to the Christian faith. Other views, IMNSHO, fail the test of a real politik.
Your analogy fails because there is no reasonable test for scripture like this.
quote:I'm not sure I quite follow you here.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
It's easy to tell if our approximation of the laws of physics work - if they don't, the plane falls out of the air.
Your analogy fails because there is no reasonable test for scripture like this.
quote:I agree. That is where things like the community of the church and reason and tradition etc. come in. I think we can get 'pretty good'.
Originally posted by Orfeo:
I suppose that doesn't mean you need a PERFECTLY designed plane... so do you need an infallible interpretation? Perhaps not, but you need one that meets a pretty high standard, and that has been extensively tested before you start entrusting your life to it.
quote:Obviously we can't come up with a definitive list of exactly what good behaviour looks like (for that would be an infallible list and we'd all start arguing again) but I agree with Boogie that it is possible to look for the 'vibe' of those seeking to follow Christ.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't know about this. When a Church preaches a pile of nonsense it usually shows up loud and clear. The participants may not see it, but those all around can.
quote:We know if our "interpretation" of a plane is bad. It fails to get into the air, or falls out in a manner we don't wish. It's bleeding obvious when you're wrong.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:I'm not sure I quite follow you here.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
It's easy to tell if our approximation of the laws of physics work - if they don't, the plane falls out of the air.
Your analogy fails because there is no reasonable test for scripture like this.
Is that a philosophical objection? In which case I need to point out that you are abusing the analogy - if the bible infallibly reveals God to us then it reveals a supernatural being who is, by definition, not going to submit to physical laws. If God was simply part of the material universe we wouldn't need any revelation would we?
quote:Ahh yes, let's farm the problem out among more people, surely that'll help.
I agree. That is where things like the community of the church and reason and tradition etc. come in. I think we can get 'pretty good'.
quote:Obviously we can't come up with a definitive list of exactly what good behaviour looks like (for that would be an infallible list and we'd all start arguing again) but I agree with Boogie that it is possible to look for the 'vibe' of those seeking to follow Christ. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't know about this. When a Church preaches a pile of nonsense it usually shows up loud and clear. The participants may not see it, but those all around can.
quote:I guess for you the god you worship need not have ultimately produced the Bible at all, just granted you creativity and some religion.
In fact the Bible tends to take me away from God's love as the OT (especially) is so full of a cruel, unloving God I don't recognise.
So meditation, prayer, walking, painting, lovemaking, worshipping with friends - all these things bring me closer to God than the Bible does.
quote:Prosperity gospellers can give off all sorts of good vibes. Does this make their interpretation of scripture correct? Who will judge between you and them? You both take your beliefs from the same Bible.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Obviously we can't come up with a definitive list of exactly what good behaviour looks like (for that would be an infallible list and we'd all start arguing again) but I agree with Boogie that it is possible to look for the 'vibe' of those seeking to follow Christ.
quote:I think it's a heck of a lot more important that the participants have a useful test. Otherwise, all you get is a lot of Churches quoting verses about how blessed they are for being persecuted for holding to the truth.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I don't know about this. When a Church preaches a pile of nonsense it usually shows up loud and clear. The participants may not see it, but those all around can.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
It's easy to tell if our approximation of the laws of physics work - if they don't, the plane falls out of the air.
Your analogy fails because there is no reasonable test for scripture like this.
quote:Of course there is - does this interpretation make the church and society better?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
We know if our "interpretation" of a plane is bad. It fails to get into the air, or falls out in a manner we don't wish. It's bleeding obvious when you're wrong.
There's no way to know if your interpretation is as fucked up or not.
quote:Canard no. 2.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
You can use the Bible to justify almost anything....
quote:I thought someone would pick up on that. Admittedly it is not normally a phrase I use.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Johnny - a 'vibe' huh? Sounds pretty damn sloppy. Sounds wonderfully ripe for abuse. Very subjective, etc, etc.... Doesn't sound like it should be in the same county as 'infallible.'
quote:That's a difficult one.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Otherwise, all you get is a lot of Churches quoting verses about how blessed they are for being persecuted for holding to the truth.
quote:Why? If you are actually being persecuted, you don't have a persecution complex. The principle is sound. It's the application of the principle to a particular circumstance that may not be.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:That's a difficult one.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Otherwise, all you get is a lot of Churches quoting verses about how blessed they are for being persecuted for holding to the truth.
I agree with your warning about a persecution complex but then again you'd have to put Jesus in that same basket-case.
quote:You're right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sometimes people ARE persecuted for holding to the truth. The problem is that the people who self-report persecution are frequently not among them.
quote:Stop putting words in my mouth NOW.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And once again (for the billionth time) I'm not advocating an infallible interpretation (MT is).
quote:Hmm. No, I'm not sure there are objective external tests. There's an objective reality, but I don't know how you measure it. What's the standard unit for persecution? I know metres, seconds, kilograms and some others, but the SI unit for measuring persecution has passed me by.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:You're right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sometimes people ARE persecuted for holding to the truth. The problem is that the people who self-report persecution are frequently not among them.
Another clear example where there are objective external tests.
quote:I'm happy with that. The question is what's better:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Look, why don't we just say that you cannot get an infallible result unless you have an infallible application of an infallible interpretation of an infallible text, and leave it at that?
quote:As Alan has pointed out you did say this:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Stop putting words in my mouth NOW.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And once again (for the billionth time) I'm not advocating an infallible interpretation (MT is).
quote:I think we are supposed to conclude that while the interpretation of the Orthodox Church is infallible, MT's interpretation of the interpretation of the OC is not. Or something like that.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The scriptures as interpreted by the Orthodox Church are infallible.
quote:That is a serious point though isn't it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Look, why don't we just say that you cannot get an infallible result unless you have an infallible application of an infallible interpretation of an infallible text, and leave it at that?
quote:Claiming something exists and advocating for something are not the same thing. Perhaps a trip to the dictionary is in order?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You've probably come closest to claiming an infallible interpretation is possible, in this post.
quote:Multiplication of fractions. With 'infallibility' equal to 1. Every non-infallible element reduces your end total.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I'm happy with that. The question is what's better:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Look, why don't we just say that you cannot get an infallible result unless you have an infallible application of an infallible interpretation of an infallible text, and leave it at that??
- A best possible application of a best possible interpretation of an infallible text, or
- A best possible application of a best possible interpretation of the best possible (but not infallible) text
quote:Don't know about MT. But the only interaction we can have is through the interpretation of the book. Which means that after interpretation it will be indistinguishable from a fallible book. And the infallibility is therefore irrelevant.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Therefore surely the burden of proof rests on MT to demonstrate that an infallible bible is pointless without an infallible interpretation?
quote:And those laws of science have been tested by every test we have been able to think of to throw at them. And are revised any time that we can find a result that contradicts our previous understanding. You ... refuse to do this. Every single contradiction must be explained to reach the standards necessary for a scientific theory.
Every time I fly back to the UK I put great faith in the laws of physics - I mean these are life and death decisions I'm talking about here. I make them on the assumption that while scientific models are only approximations to absolute reality they are close enough to base my life on.
quote:Fine. But you still don't throw the level of scrutiny that's thrown at scientific theories.
Rather like scientific models I'm happy to admit that my interpretation of the bible will never be infallible but it is still a realistic enterprise to get close enough to base my life on - even really important life and death decisions.
quote:You are confusing fundamental with trivial practical questions. Fundamental questions of science and religion should be given every form of scrutiny possible. Practical questions (such as "has no one tampered with my car") can normally be taken on trust. You are treating the Christian faith as a trivial practical question rather than one that has fundamental meaning with serious conseqences if you get it wrong.
That is how society operates in pretty much all other fields of understanding so I'm surprised that there is so much resistance for it to apply to the Christian faith.
quote:Except it works for science. Is your religion as important as an understanding of the physical world? Or do you take it as lightly as you do your grocery shopping?
Other views, IMNSHO, fail the test of a real politik.
quote:No, that doesn't follow. The interpretation may not be infallible but we still have the infallible text to compare it with to look for deviation.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Don't know about MT. But the only interaction we can have is through the interpretation of the book. Which means that after interpretation it will be indistinguishable from a fallible book. And the infallibility is therefore irrelevant.
quote:We seem to be talking at cross purposes here.
Originally posted by Justinian:
However the burden of proof is on you because you are making an extraordinary claim. This would be the same burden of evidence as on any scientist - is there any evidence that contradicts your theory and if so how can you explain that. Unfortunately you refuse to face the same scrutiny any scientist will face when presenting a contraversial theory.
quote:Again you are confusing the theory with the evidence. I'm more than happy for the interpretation to be put under the same scrutiny as science is.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And those laws of science have been tested by every test we have been able to think of to throw at them. And are revised any time that we can find a result that contradicts our previous understanding. You ... refuse to do this. Every single contradiction must be explained to reach the standards necessary for a scientific theory.
Fine. But you still don't throw the level of scrutiny that's thrown at scientific theories.
quote:You are actually make a good case for infallibility here.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, and for the record, things justified using the bible have included the Prosperity Gospel, slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, the Divine Right of Kings, war, and many others. It might not be able to be used for almost anything. But comes damn close.
quote:Though I understand where you're coming from, I think the problem is that actually we can only ever view the infallible text through fallible interpretations. What we can compare is one fallible interpretation with another fallible interpretation. The actual infallible text is inaccessible to us, but that doesn't make belief in an infallible text meaningless.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No, that doesn't follow. The interpretation may not be infallible but we still have the infallible text to compare it with to look for deviation.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Don't know about MT. But the only interaction we can have is through the interpretation of the book. Which means that after interpretation it will be indistinguishable from a fallible book. And the infallibility is therefore irrelevant.
quote:Your analogy involves a bad category error. Equating an 'interpretation' with a 'copy' is just completely wrong.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No, that doesn't follow. The interpretation may not be infallible but we still have the infallible text to compare it with to look for deviation.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Don't know about MT. But the only interaction we can have is through the interpretation of the book. Which means that after interpretation it will be indistinguishable from a fallible book. And the infallibility is therefore irrelevant.
If I try to copy a great master (a Picasso for example) then my copy (interpretation) will never match up to the original but I can still measure it against the original to see where it differs.
It is quite legitimate to expect, over time, the difference between them to lessen.
quote:I agree with pretty much everything you say here but am a bit confused over how you are using the word infallible here - aren't you using it to mean 'exhaustive'?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Now, no amount of documentary evidence or eyewitness interviews are going to give us the whole story - the evidence will be somewhat fragmentary, the events may be completely recorded but we'll still not have access to the reasoning behind all the decisions that were made or the emotions of the people involved. There's a "infallible account" of the incident, but that's as inaccessible to us as the infallible text of Scripture. But, if that incident is important then we would want to have an interpretation of the incident that's as close to the actual events as possible, it might be (for example) a murder and we want to know what happened as best we can to ensure the right suspect goes down for it.
quote:While you've got the dictionary out it would help to look up analogy too.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your analogy involves a bad category error. Equating an 'interpretation' with a 'copy' is just completely wrong.
Personally, I get nervous any time you bring up an analogy because I find they usually don't work very well. But this one is particularly bad. In any context, interpretation is not anything like copying. Interpreting something is about giving it meaning, or exploring what its meaning is. It never involves attempting to replicate the thing.
I don't interpret a piece of music by writing the notes out again on another piece of manuscript paper. When I interpret a law (or when someone interprets a law I've written), it's absolutely no help to just write out the exact same words that were in the original.
quote:Correct. I don't see how infallibility could ever be proved. The only way to prove or disprove it would be to know perfectly the character of God and then demonstrate the scripture was either consistent or in contradiction with that.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I have yet to see on this thread any justification for the claim that the bible is infallible, beyond "we" believe it is/ought to be.
quote:Certainly I'll agree that infallibility isn't the same as giving certainty. It's a claim about trustworthiness, not certainty (it's possible that a claim for inerrancy would be more of an assertion of certainty).
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I have yet to see on this thread any justification for the claim that the bible is infallible, beyond "we" believe it is/ought to be. In the end the notion of biblical infallibility itself is just interpretation - it is not on the same level of certainty that something, however trivial - a woman filled a cooking pot, for example - will have happened in Rome on the Ides of March 44 BC.
quote:But the interpretation comes from the supposedly infallible text.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No, that doesn't follow. The interpretation may not be infallible but we still have the infallible text to compare it with to look for deviation.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Don't know about MT. But the only interaction we can have is through the interpretation of the book. Which means that after interpretation it will be indistinguishable from a fallible book. And the infallibility is therefore irrelevant.
quote:And here your analogy is shown to fail. Because interpreting the bible even assumuing it to be infallible is not even close to copying a Picasso. It's more like writing an essay about a Picasso. You've changed media, making a direct comparison inappropriate.
If I try to copy a great master (a Picasso for example) then my copy (interpretation) will never match up to the original but I can still measure it against the original to see where it differs.
quote:Sure. By definition "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second." Give me the right measuring tools and I can check your metre for you. That's because the metre is tied by its definition to all the other units
We seem to be talking at cross purposes here.
You seem to be asking for evidence that a text is infallible - that is a category error. It is like asking for proof that a metre is a metre long.
quote:But are apparently unwilling to have the clear and stated words of the bible put under scrutiny. Because when the bible is directly compared with Creation? It fails.
Again you are confusing the theory with the evidence. I'm more than happy for the interpretation to be put under the same scrutiny as science is.
quote:OK. Make me some predictions. Those can be tested. But even then that's not evidence about the infalibility of the bible.
The evidence of any interpretation would be found by examining the lives of those who seek to put it into practice.
quote:In more cases I'd argue that they changed their minds because they were convinced that something was the right thing to do. And damn the interpretations. As a text, the bible regularly condones slavery and never directly condemns it.
You are actually make a good case for infallibility here.
It saddens me greatly that people have tried to twist scripture to these perverted ends. However there are certain things that follow if you are going to take these examples:
1. Inside the church Christians have changed their minds on many of these issues precisely because they have been convinced that their interpretation had been wrong in the past.
quote:And here I believe you have it entirely backwards. Evangelical Christians have been about spreading the Gospel. And to properly evangelise you need to listen to people and in the process listen to their suffering. It is this engagement with the rest of the world and listening to it - and then questioning rather than following authority that lead to their abolitionism. The biblical authority is not anti-slavery and indeed has no problem with it.
2. There is an authority issue here - the assumption is that if scripture teaches X then Christians should obey X. Following on from point 1, this has meant (for example with the abolition of slavery) that in some areas evangelical Christians have been at the fore-front of speaking out against these societal evils.
quote:And here's where I pity certain strands of Christian. Because there's a world of difference between one infalliable source and arbitrary.
In short, if there is no infallible word from God on how we should live then morality is nothing more than a social construct.
quote:Um... if you actually read the bible, you find plenty of accounts of genocide mandated by God. So according to the bible genocide used to be okay, and now isn't. But it could become okay again in the future if God asked for it. Now if you just take a basic principle like the golden rule as a foundation then genocide becomes objectively a violation rather than arbitrarily evil based on where in history we are.
Taking racism as an example all we could say is that racism used to be okay, now it isn't, but it could become okay in the future. However, an infallible text enables us to say that racism is objectively evil.
quote:It does not necessarily - it just means that it being infallible doesn't mean that much. On the other hand that it's self-contradictory does mean that it's not infallible. As does it contradicting the real world.
(In some ways this reminds of Richard Dawkins response to the charge that science has produced nuclear bombs as well as cures for diseases - 'at least they both work!' The fact that scripture has been mishandled does not necessarily mean that it is not infallible.)
quote:Infalliability, like a scientific theory, can not be proved. However it is a strong claim - and a single point of failure within the entire bible demonstrates that the bible is faliable. One single case of divinely mandated genocide. The bible supporting slavery. Every single such case needs to be explained or the argument that the bible is infalliable simply does not hold.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Correct. I don't see how infallibility could ever be proved. The only way to prove or disprove it would be to know perfectly the character of God and then demonstrate the scripture was either consistent or in contradiction with that.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I have yet to see on this thread any justification for the claim that the bible is infallible, beyond "we" believe it is/ought to be.
quote:Once more, that is why it is called an analogy.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And here your analogy is shown to fail. Because interpreting the bible even assumuing it to be infallible is not even close to copying a Picasso. It's more like writing an essay about a Picasso. You've changed media, making a direct comparison inappropriate.
quote:Actually that's what I meant. That is what we observe to be a metre. If (and of course it is a big if) the bible is infallible then we are talking about the revelation of God himself. How do you observe the great observer?
Originally posted by Justinian:
Sure. By definition "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second." Give me the right measuring tools and I can check your metre for you. That's because the metre is tied by its definition to all the other units
quote:The golden rule, while a helpful axiom to live by, is pretty useless as an objective rule.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Now if you just take a basic principle like the golden rule as a foundation then genocide becomes objectively a violation rather than arbitrarily evil based on where in history we are.
quote:The first question to be asked is does a single instance of, say, a text supporting genocide mean that the Bible supports genocide. I'm not sure that Scriptural infallibility requires every verse to be infallible, but for the whole to be infallible. A verse, or passage, taken out of context of the rest of Scripture may mislead, ie: be fallible.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Infalliability, like a scientific theory, can not be proved. However it is a strong claim - and a single point of failure within the entire bible demonstrates that the bible is faliable. One single case of divinely mandated genocide. The bible supporting slavery. Every single such case needs to be explained or the argument that the bible is infalliable simply does not hold.
quote:But what you are saying here is that the bible is treated as infallible because it is beneficial (in the opinion of some?) that it should be treated as infallible. So biblical infallibility doesn't exist in its own right but rather it is a result of a human interpretation of human need, and a human desire to elevate the value attached to the bible. It's a reversal of causality.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought I'd given justification for why I consider Scripture to be infallible. I hope you don't mind if I repeat what I thought I had already said. Belief in the infallibility of Scripture is a rallying call for taking Scripture seriously, it's a high standard for Scripture that calls us to attempt an equally high standard for interpretation of Scripture. It says that simply reading the Bible because it gives us good feelings, or taking verses that reinforce our preconceptions, or ignoring sections that make us uncomfortable is simply not good enough. It's a belief that Scripture is a trustworthy document, and it's a call for us to have faith in the God revealed in a trustworthy manner in those pages.
quote:Your grasp of analogies appears to be poor. As do your analogies. If the artifacts from the analogy become more important than the points of simmilarity then the analogy is at best useless. Which is why I rejected yours in most cases - it might work in the case of the Book of Mormon but that's about it.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Once more, that is why it is called an analogy.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And here your analogy is shown to fail. Because interpreting the bible even assumuing it to be infallible is not even close to copying a Picasso. It's more like writing an essay about a Picasso. You've changed media, making a direct comparison inappropriate.
quote:And plenty of stuff that can be brought out, emphasised, is incredibly contextual, and the attribution of the painting can be questioned. It's a much better analogy. All the words, like all the paint are unquestioned - but the meanings can be debated until the cows come home.
However, if you prefer I'd be happy to go with writing an essay about a Picasso. There is still an objective painting with which to compare the essay. There will be some subjectivity but also plenty of stuff that is either legitimate or illegitimate from the painting.
quote:I don't observe the great observer. I observe the unquestioned creation of the Creator. In other words I observe the physical universe. And try to work out whether the Bible and the Universe have the same creator - if they don't then it wasn't the Creator who created the bible.
Actually that's what I meant. That is what we observe to be a metre. If (and of course it is a big if) the bible is infallible then we are talking about the revelation of God himself. How do you observe the great observer?
quote:To repeat myself, you can't prove that the bible is infalliable any more than you can prove that a scientific theory is true. All you can do is check whether the bible is falliable. And two directly contradictory accounts of creation in the bible, neither of which appears compatable with the Universe is more than sufficient.
I've never tried to 'prove' that the bible is infallible. I keep saying that I don't think you can.
quote:And here is why I think that most inerrantists are intellectually lazy. We do not get given objective rules. We need to work out how to apply the principles. And that's just one of the principles I mentioned.
The golden rule, while a helpful axiom to live by, is pretty useless as an objective rule.
quote:That question makes as much sense as "If all we had was the book of Genesis then how would you suggest we should have responded to Hitler?" Or on another note "If all we had was healthy eating, how would you suggest we treat cancer?" Nowhere did I suggest that that was the only source. Or that it covered all circumstances.
If all we had was the golden rule then how would you suggest we should have responded to Hitler?
quote:With unconditional love, as commanded. That is how God will treat him. Who knows how different history would have been had the young Adolf has been surrounded by and nurtured in a loving family?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If all we had was the golden rule then how would you suggest we should have responded to Hitler?
quote:No, we have a fallible interpretation to compare it to. We can't get to the Bible except by interpretation, and no interpretation is infallible. Therefore we cannot compare it to the infallible Bible, because that is out of our reach.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No, that doesn't follow. The interpretation may not be infallible but we still have the infallible text to compare it with to look for deviation.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Don't know about MT. But the only interaction we can have is through the interpretation of the book. Which means that after interpretation it will be indistinguishable from a fallible book. And the infallibility is therefore irrelevant.
quote:Well we differ on how analogies work then. If all we can do is move from interpretation in one field to interpretation in another field then I'm lost as to why we would ever need an analogy at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even your explanation of why you had to use an analogy, misses the purpose of an analogy - to illustrate the same concepts in a different context. If you change the CONCEPTS as well as the context, the whole thing falls over. You can only make a valid analogy relating to interpretation by looking at other forms of interpretation. Not by suddenly deciding to look at 'copying' and trying to persuade us, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it has anything at all to do with the concept of interpretation.
quote:I thought it would come down to this. You are trying to use the sticks of YEC and genocide (issues debated endlessly on the ship elsewhere) to beat up the evangelical doctrine of scripture.
Originally posted by Justinian:
To repeat myself, you can't prove that the bible is infalliable any more than you can prove that a scientific theory is true. All you can do is check whether the bible is falliable. And two directly contradictory accounts of creation in the bible, neither of which appears compatable with the Universe is more than sufficient.
quote:The conversation has, at least twice, gone like this:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Well we differ on how analogies work then. If all we can do is move from interpretation in one field to interpretation in another field then I'm lost as to why we would ever need an analogy at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even your explanation of why you had to use an analogy, misses the purpose of an analogy - to illustrate the same concepts in a different context. If you change the CONCEPTS as well as the context, the whole thing falls over. You can only make a valid analogy relating to interpretation by looking at other forms of interpretation. Not by suddenly deciding to look at 'copying' and trying to persuade us, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it has anything at all to do with the concept of interpretation.
Whenever we discuss models of the atonement we are using analogies. Does the CV model only work if Jesus was actually fighting with the devil?
IMO you are mixing up weak and strong analogies. I've being using weak analogies (as I have fully admitted) in attempt to move the discussion on. What I'm hearing is that you will only accept analogies that fit all your axioms. If that is the case then there isn't much point continuing the conversation.
quote:Believe it or not I do get that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Here's a basic tip: if there isn't the correspondence between relations that enables a comparison to be made, it's not an analogy.
quote:There are I suppose two ways to view the question.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:But what you are saying here is that the bible is treated as infallible because it is beneficial (in the opinion of some?) that it should be treated as infallible. So biblical infallibility doesn't exist in its own right but rather it is a result of a human interpretation of human need, and a human desire to elevate the value attached to the bible. It's a reversal of causality.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought I'd given justification for why I consider Scripture to be infallible. I hope you don't mind if I repeat what I thought I had already said. Belief in the infallibility of Scripture is a rallying call for taking Scripture seriously, it's a high standard for Scripture that calls us to attempt an equally high standard for interpretation of Scripture. It says that simply reading the Bible because it gives us good feelings, or taking verses that reinforce our preconceptions, or ignoring sections that make us uncomfortable is simply not good enough. It's a belief that Scripture is a trustworthy document, and it's a call for us to have faith in the God revealed in a trustworthy manner in those pages.
quote:For a start, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that God "dictated the Bible". The formation of the Bible was a much more subtle process than mere dictation, one that fully involved human authorship and yet (IMO) retained an infallibility consistent with being the creation of an infallible God. Second, the two creation accounts in Genesis are only directly contradictory if you interpret them as accounts of how creation happened, as some form of objective scientific historical account. If you accept them as mythical poetic stories teaching important theological truth then they become wonderfully complementary and synergistic. You can't disprove the infallibility of Scripture by pointing out the fallibility of interpretations of Scripture - because AFAIK no one here is arguing for the infallibility of their interpretations of Scripture.
Originally posted by Justinian:
For me to believe the bible to be infalliable then I would need to believe that the creator of the physical world was so uncertain about his creation that he provided two directly contradictory accounts. And that very simply isn't what I see in the beauty of Creation. Therefore I conclude that it was not the Creator who dictated the bible.
quote:And, I entirely agree with this. Although as we're discussing infallibility rather than inerrancy it isn't relevant to this discussion. As I've repeatedly said, infallibility is a call to do the hard work of Biblical interpretation, to work out the principals and how they apply today. Belief in the infallibility of Scripture should result in the exact opposite of intellectual laziness.
here is why I think that most inerrantists are intellectually lazy. We do not get given objective rules. We need to work out how to apply the principles.
quote:Well I'm really confused now. It feels (well, to me at least) that you've just summarised my position!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I disagree with parts of your position. Other bits I agree with - although you might have to go back a couple of pages to see that, because we haven't been focusing on those bits. Remember, I agreed with the proposition that the Bible is infallible.
Where we part ways is on the effect of interpretation. The thing that I and many others are trying to say is that the nature of the act of interpretation doesn't depend on the qualities of the thing being interpreted. The act of interpreting is similar whether it's interpreting the Bible, a Tolstoy novel or a 2nd-rate pamphlet published by the mad old man down the street. The fact that the Bible is infallible is, in my view, utterly irrelevant to that point.
So the reason I find your analogies unhelpful is not because there aren't any other infallible documents around, but because I think you're wrong to think that the infallibility is even relevant.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:The problem is that infalliability as you have so far described it would appear to be a truly meaningless concept. It is not ever approachable because interpreters are flawed. It is not ever testable because if it fails all that means is that the apologetics aren't good enough. All it appears to be is a word that says the bible contains wisdom. Well yes. The bible is not morally infalliable if it supports slavery or genocide. It is not literally infalliable if it comes up with counterfactuals - those are failings to understand the real world. So what does your word infalliable mean?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:I thought it would come down to this. You are trying to use the sticks of YEC and genocide (issues debated endlessly on the ship elsewhere) to beat up the evangelical doctrine of scripture.
Originally posted by Justinian:
To repeat myself, you can't prove that the bible is infalliable any more than you can prove that a scientific theory is true. All you can do is check whether the bible is falliable. And two directly contradictory accounts of creation in the bible, neither of which appears compatable with the Universe is more than sufficient.
quote:It's one type of failing. Factual inaccuracy. The bible has demonstrably lead its readers astray.
I, like many Christians (not just evangelicals), are quite happy to see Genesis 1 and 2 as complementary. I don't see what this has got to do with infallibility.
quote:What does that even mean? That the bible is a flawed creation of flawed minds and flawed hands that contains much wisdom is granted. But what do you mean by infalliable? Can it lead people astray? Yes and it does. Are there good things strongly supported and only weakly opposed by the bible? Yes. Abolition springs to mind. So what does infalliable mean?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For a start, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that God "dictated the Bible". The formation of the Bible was a much more subtle process than mere dictation, one that fully involved human authorship and yet (IMO) retained an infallibility consistent with being the creation of an infallible God.
quote:What does infalliable mean? That it is too perfect to ever be understood? As you describe it it is a meaningless concept when applied to the world.
You can't disprove the infallibility of Scripture by pointing out the fallibility of interpretations of Scripture - because AFAIK no one here is arguing for the infallibility of their interpretations of Scripture.
quote:And this I don't understand. How can an error-strewn doccument be infalliable?
And, I entirely agree with this. Although as we're discussing infallibility rather than inerrancy it isn't relevant to this discussion.
quote:It possibly should. But where it isn't intellectual laziness, it seems to be a call to intellectual backflips and the attempt to prove that black is white.
As I've repeatedly said, infallibility is a call to do the hard work of Biblical interpretation, to work out the principals and how they apply today. Belief in the infallibility of Scripture should result in the exact opposite of intellectual laziness.
quote:To be fair, you arguably DID say that. But you also keep clinging to the idea that the infallible text of the Bible makes a difference by being a standard against which the non-infallible interpretation can be compared.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Well I'm really confused now. It feels (well, to me at least) that you've just summarised my position!
I thought I was the one saying that the act of interpreting was pretty much the same whatever document you were approaching.
Or at least I meant to. Oh dear.
quote:I didn't pick you for a fundamentalist creationist Justinian. That's how they argue. Once again the similarities between fundamentalist theists and fundamentalist atheists is enlightening.
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's one type of failing. Factual inaccuracy. The bible has demonstrably lead its readers astray.
quote:Only thing? That's pretty big isn't it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only thing that the infallibility of the Bible does in this context is tell you that it's worth interpreting.
quote:Yes, I agree it is pretty big. But I did say 'in this context'.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Only thing? That's pretty big isn't it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only thing that the infallibility of the Bible does in this context is tell you that it's worth interpreting.
I'm not going to devote my life to wrestling with interpreting Mein Kampf.
However, if the bible is infallible then it is worthwhile since I'm getting closer to an accurate portrayal of God. I think that is hugely significant.
quote:I don't recall saying that it was.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not an aid to interpretation.
quote:Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:I don't recall saying that it was.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not an aid to interpretation.
quote:I'm not. I do not believe the bible to be infallible. I believe you can have respect for a text without making up properties about it like "infalliable" or "inerrant" and putting it up on a pedestal for the purpose of bibliolatory. The religious text I regularly return to is the world's furthest thing from either - it gets revised every few years (Quaker Faith and Practice).
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:I didn't pick you for a fundamentalist creationist Justinian. That's how they argue. Once again the similarities between fundamentalist theists and fundamentalist atheists is enlightening.
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's one type of failing. Factual inaccuracy. The bible has demonstrably lead its readers astray.
quote:No, remember you dismissed my analogy of the painting. The point I was making in the analogy was that the painting is really there and we can really see it. It is not hidden in a locked room where our only access to it is by looking at 'interpretations'.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
quote:Funnily enough I've just finished another chapter of Hugh MacKay's book What makes us tick? As an Australian social commentator it is compulsory reading as part of my Aussie enculturation.
Originally posted by Justinian:
On a tangent, this is exactly what Dawkins was writing about in The God Delusion.
quote:Of course you agree with MacKay. And it really doesn't hasn't surprised me that people take what they can since I read Eagleton's criticism cited approvingly by a number of people. When it is very clear that if Eagleton has done any more than flicked through The God Delusion, he doesn't bring that into his critique. Dawkins is training his guns on people like you. From what you've just written MacKay is giving you a reason to be able to dismiss the condemnation. It's not hard to guess which you are instinctively sympathetic to.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Funnily enough I've just finished another chapter of Hugh MacKay's book What makes us tick? As an Australian social commentator it is compulsory reading as part of my Aussie enculturation.
In the chapter about belief he quotes James Wood favourably: "Nothing more clearly shows that atheism belongs to religious belief, as the candlesnuffer does to the candle, than the rise of so-called atheism." MacKay then goes on to roundly dismiss Dawkins (and others) for barking up the wrong tree.
I read The God Delusion some years ago and it won't surprise you that I concur with MacKay. It might surprise you just how many other people agree though.
quote:Category error again. Being able to see a painting is not the same as understanding its meaning.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No, remember you dismissed my analogy of the painting. The point I was making in the analogy was that the painting is really there and we can really see it. It is not hidden in a locked room where our only access to it is by looking at 'interpretations'.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
In that sense we can always measure the interpretation against the original in an iterative way. I never said that this aids our interpretation. Rather it stops us from giving up on the task as an impossible illusion.
quote:OK, here's a question. If you had in your hands an essay on the Mona Lisa, would you find it easier to determine if the essay was talking complete bollocks if you could see the Mona Lisa? Or would it make no difference if the Mona Lisa was locked away in a vault where no one could see it, and there weren't even any copies available for you to study?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Category error again. Being able to see a painting is not the same as understanding its meaning.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No, remember you dismissed my analogy of the painting. The point I was making in the analogy was that the painting is really there and we can really see it. It is not hidden in a locked room where our only access to it is by looking at 'interpretations'.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
In that sense we can always measure the interpretation against the original in an iterative way. I never said that this aids our interpretation. Rather it stops us from giving up on the task as an impossible illusion.
quote:Given what passes for art criticism, is it even possible to write an essay that is complete bollocks? Poe's law seems to have a corollary in the art world...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, here's a question. If you had in your hands an essay on the Mona Lisa, would you find it easier to determine if the essay was talking complete bollocks if you could see the Mona Lisa? Or would it make no difference if the Mona Lisa was locked away in a vault where no one could see it, and there weren't even any copies available for you to study?
quote:That's easy. It's obviously easier if you can see the thing.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:OK, here's a question. If you had in your hands an essay on the Mona Lisa, would you find it easier to determine if the essay was talking complete bollocks if you could see the Mona Lisa? Or would it make no difference if the Mona Lisa was locked away in a vault where no one could see it, and there weren't even any copies available for you to study?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Category error again. Being able to see a painting is not the same as understanding its meaning.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:No, remember you dismissed my analogy of the painting. The point I was making in the analogy was that the painting is really there and we can really see it. It is not hidden in a locked room where our only access to it is by looking at 'interpretations'.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on. Don't make such a fine semantic distinction. What you said was that the infallible Bible provided something to measure the interpretation against. That's obviously supposed to mean that it will improve the interpretation. Which fits within the meaning of 'aid'.
In that sense we can always measure the interpretation against the original in an iterative way. I never said that this aids our interpretation. Rather it stops us from giving up on the task as an impossible illusion.
quote:That is surreal because it is exactly the analogy that I have been using all along.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the Bible isn't locked away either. I can read it. Reading the Bible is not the same as understanding it, though. Seeing a painting is not the same as understanding it.
The equivalent of having the Mona Lisa locked away would be if I was not able to read the text of the Bible for myself, and had to rely on other people's claims about what it said.
See? THERE'S an analogy!
quote:Look out of your window. That's reality. Your computer. The sky. The ground. The window itself. All real. As is that feeling in your chest when you look at someone you love. Or someone you hate. The text is all there in the open if you care to look and study.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the bible is not infallible then the text is not out in the open - because then all we have are some words to read but we have no idea how closely they cohere with reality. Then it really is like the painting is locked away. We are reading a review of the painting but we cannot look at the painting to draw our own conclusions.
quote:But without knowing which interpretation is right, we don't know in what way it coheres with reality. For instance does Gen 1-3 cohere with reality as a myth expressing a valid theological concept? As straight history? As a fairy tale? As an acid trip? All of those "cohere with reality" in some way. But until we know which of them is the correct interpretation, we don't know which mode of coherence with reality the text has. Without the infallible interpretation we are right where you say we are if we say the Bible is not infallible.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the bible is not infallible then the text is not out in the open - because then all we have are some words to read but we have no idea how closely they cohere with reality. Then it really is like the painting is locked away. We are reading a review of the painting but we cannot look at the painting to draw our own conclusions.
quote:It really, really isn't.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That is surreal because it is exactly the analogy that I have been using all along.
quote:No, Johnny, it isn't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It really, really isn't.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That is surreal because it is exactly the analogy that I have been using all along.
quote:Actually that is really helpful MT. That is closer to the process I was trying to describe.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Here's one: we don't know if the Mona Lisa is an accurate depiction because we don't have the woman who modeled for it. But, let's say, we have 20 other artist's impressions of her face, some of which are similar to the ML but different in significant ways, and some of which wildly divergent -- but then others are a lot like those. Unless we have someone who can definitively say, "this one here is the one that captures what she really looks like," then we are at sea; we can't determine what she really looked like.
quote:Sure, what God wants to convey is the Mona Lisa. You then have various versions that were made by painters with cataracts wearing drunk goggles and the original is being shaken up and down.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm arguing that the infallible bible is an accurate portrayal of what God actually 'looks like'. If the bible was not infallible then we have a painting but no idea how accurate a representation it is.
quote:If that's what you think I said, I said it all wrong. In my analogy, the woman is the actual infallible meaning of the bible. The pictures of which the mona lisa is one are interpretations.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually that is really helpful MT. That is closer to the process I was trying to describe.
I think we are sometimes talking at cross purposes on this thread because, for the sake of continuing this already tortuous analogy, I'm always talking with the historical Mona Lisa in mind.
I'm arguing that the infallible bible is an accurate portrayal of what God actually 'looks like'. If the bible was not infallible then we have a painting but no idea how accurate a representation it is.
I am not making all the claims about interpretation that you (plural you) think I am though.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Actually that is really helpful MT. That is closer to the process I was trying to describe.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Here's one: we don't know if the Mona Lisa is an accurate depiction because we don't have the woman who modeled for it. But, let's say, we have 20 other artist's impressions of her face, some of which are similar to the ML but different in significant ways, and some of which wildly divergent -- but then others are a lot like those. Unless we have someone who can definitively say, "this one here is the one that captures what she really looks like," then we are at sea; we can't determine what she really looked like.
I think we are sometimes talking at cross purposes on this thread because, for the sake of continuing this already tortuous analogy, I'm always talking with the historical Mona Lisa in mind.
I'm arguing that the infallible bible is an accurate portrayal of what God actually 'looks like'. If the bible was not infallible then we have a painting but no idea how accurate a representation it is.
I am not making all the claims about interpretation that you (plural you) think I am though.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Well, in my analogy, the picture is the infallible representation of the woman. Although, to slightly alter the analogy I'd say that actually the Bible is more like a gallery of different pictures of the Mona Lisa, some of which try to present her physical appearance others attempt to show her character and personality, which taken together are an infallible representation of the actual woman.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In my analogy, the woman is the actual infallible meaning of the bible. The pictures of which the mona lisa is one are interpretations.
quote:Okay - I didn't think you were saying that exactly, what I meant was that it got me thinking from another angle.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If that's what you think I said, I said it all wrong. In my analogy, the woman is the actual infallible meaning of the bible. The pictures of which the mona lisa is one are interpretations.
quote:That's right Orfeo the golden rule of discussion is to always assume that the other person is either a) stupid or b) cynically avoiding facing up to the obvious contradiction of their position. (Under no circumstances ever assume that they might be wanting a discussion.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
The most irritating thing about this for me is that I actually agree with... probably about 80% of your views. But I spend this thread watching you duck and weave and fuse one concept into another, apparently without realising you're doing it, and it's tiring.
quote:Everybody would've been gone 4 pages ago if they were taking this tack.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That's right Orfeo the golden rule of discussion is to always assume that the other person is either a) stupid or b) cynically avoiding facing up to the obvious contradiction of their position. (Under no circumstances ever assume that they might be wanting a discussion.)
